JUDGMENT Ramchandra Singh Jhala, J. - These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the order dated 17.9.2016 passed in SBCWP No.10949/2010 whereby the writ petition filed by respondent-petitioner Chad Singh was allowed and the inquiry report dated 7.2.2009/21.2.2009 and charge sheet dated 19.1.1991 were quashed with a direction to the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the respondent-petitioner Chad Singh while treating him to be in continued service. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner Chad Singh was appointed on the post of Vyvasthapak (Manager) on 12.2.1974 by the appellant-Bank. While he was serving as Manager in the appellant-department, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 19.1.1991 (Annexure 1) by the appellant-Bank under Rule 17(4) of the Selection, Appointment and Service Conditions of Managers Rules, 1977. An enquiry vide order Annex.4 (SBCW No.2361/1994) was conducted against the respondent-petitioner and on being found guilty of misconduct, the respondent-petitioner was dismissed from service by the appellant-Bank on 30.1.1993 vide Annex.6. 3. Being aggrieved with the dismissal from service, the respondent-petitioner moved an appeal to the appellant-Bank, which was dismissed vide order dated 3.1.1994 (Annex.8). The said order was challenged by the respondent-petitioner by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2361/1994 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.8.2008 with a direction to the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry against the respondent-petitioner. Pursuant to the said order, a fresh charge sheet was served by the appellant-Bank upon the petitioner vide communication (Annex.4) dated 19.1.2009 and the petitioner was directed to participate in the enquiry. 4. It is alleged by the petitioner that the enquiry committee without responding to the prayers made by him, proceeded to hold an enquiry and held the charges proved by the appellant-Bank and again recommended the penalty of dismissal from service against the respondent-petitioner vide inquiry report dated 7.2.2009/21.2.2009 purported to have been recorded in accordance with Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies/Large Agricultural Multi Public Purpose Cooperative Societies Managing Selection Appointment and Service Conditions 2008. Being aggrieved with the said report, the respondent-petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing another writ petition being 5. B.C.W.P. No.10949/2010. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 17.9.2016. Hence, these writ appeals. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Being aggrieved with the said report, the respondent-petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing another writ petition being 5. B.C.W.P. No.10949/2010. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 17.9.2016. Hence, these writ appeals. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants advanced the same arguments which were raised by them before the learned Single Judge. No fresh argument has been advanced before us. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner Chad Singh has supported the impugned order. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality or error while passing the impugned order. 8. From perusal of pleadings of the appellant-Cooperative Society, it is crystal clear that the appellant-Society in its pleadings has specifically pleaded that the respondent Chad Singh was appointed on the post of Vyavasthapak (Manager) in the year 1974 and was regularised by the Executive Officer of Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vide its order dated 17.9.1979. It is also clear that at the time of regularisation of services of the respondent, Rules for Selection, Appointment and Service of Manager of Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Rules, 1977 were prevailing. It is also pleaded that the respondent was transferred from Chidabutter Society to Retewala GSSS vide order dated 5.11.1981 and thereafter he was transferred to Nenani Society by the Bank. It is also clearly stated that the respondent was served with a charge sheet on 19.1.1991 and after the charges having been proved against him, he was terminated from service vide order dated 11.1.1993/ 30.1.1993. 9. It is also pleaded that this Court directed the appellants for holding a fresh enquiry against the respondent-petitioner and in pursuance thereof, the Bank conducted the enquiry and on due consideration of entire material available on record, the enquiry committee found the respondent-petitioner guilty of the charges and recommended for dismissal of respondent-petitioner from service. But the Samiti vide its letter dated 28.02.2009 negated that Chad Singh was its employee, therefore, it cannot terminate his services. 10. The appellant-Central Cooperative Bank has not controverted the above fact narrated by the appellant society anywhere even in the present appeal. The appellant Bank has not pleaded anything that the respondent Chad Singh is not its employee. But the Samiti vide its letter dated 28.02.2009 negated that Chad Singh was its employee, therefore, it cannot terminate his services. 10. The appellant-Central Cooperative Bank has not controverted the above fact narrated by the appellant society anywhere even in the present appeal. The appellant Bank has not pleaded anything that the respondent Chad Singh is not its employee. Even in its appeal, the appellant-Bank has admitted that it has initiated enquiry against the respondent Chad Singh. The main contention of the appellant-Bank is to the effect that it has conducted the enquiry in fair manner and also in accordance with the Rules. 11. Upon perusal of the letter No.4723 to 4898 dated 17.9.1999, it is evident that at serial No.68, the Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. has regularised the services of the respondent-petitioner along with other Managers. Although the appellant-society has not submitted any document about the appointment of Chad Singh in 1974 but this fact narrated in the pleading has not been controverted by the appellant-Bank. 12. Upon perusal of order Annex.1 of CWP No.2361/94, it is also clear that Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. has issued charge sheet under Rule 17(4) of the Rules of 1977. Upon perusal of order Annex.6 dated 30.1.1993 of CWP No.2361/94 which was issued by the Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, it is clear that the respondent Chad Singh was also dismissed by the said Bank. 13. Upon perusal of communication dated 22.6.20011, Annex.R/2/2, it is clear that Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. also wrote a letter to Chairman, Chidabutter Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, wherein it is stated as under:- 14. A letter was written by President, Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Chidabutter to Coordinater and Member Secretary and Executive Officer, Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., wherein it is stated as under:- 15. It is admitted that at the time of appointment of respondent-petitioner Chad Singh as Vyavasthapak (Manager) in 1974, the Rules of Krishi Rindatri Sahakari Samitiyo Ke Vyavasthapako Ke Sewa Niyam, 1969 was prevailing, which reads as under:- 16. The Rules provide procedure of selection, appointment, promotion service record, dismissal and penalty. They read as under:- 17. On the basis of the pleadings and documentary evidence available on record and the fact that the respondent-petitioner was transferred from one place to another place by the appellant-Bank, it is well proved that respondent-petitioner was under direct control of the appellant-Bank. The Rules provide procedure of selection, appointment, promotion service record, dismissal and penalty. They read as under:- 17. On the basis of the pleadings and documentary evidence available on record and the fact that the respondent-petitioner was transferred from one place to another place by the appellant-Bank, it is well proved that respondent-petitioner was under direct control of the appellant-Bank. The appointment order and dismissal order of the respondent-petitioner were issued by the Bank. The power of imposing punishment also vests with the appellant Bank. 18. Thus, it is clear that although the appointment of Vyavasthapak (Manager) is made by the State Level Selection Committee and payment of salary is made from a fund separately created for this purpose, the Vyavasthapak (Manager) is under control of the appellant-bank in the context of scheme of Rule and various orders which have been placed on record. The term "employee" as defined under Section 2(5) of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 is reads as under:- (5) "employee" means a person wholly or principally employed in, or in connection with any establishment and includes an apprentice but does not include a member of the employer''s family; it also includes any clerical or other staff of a factory or industrial establishment who falls outside the purview of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act LXIII of 1948); 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Sahkari Samitiyan Vyavasthapak Union etc. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported as JT 1996(3) SC 292 has held as under : "3. Paid Secretaries were recruited by the Rajasthan Credit Co-operative Institutions Cadre Authority Limited [for short, the ''Cadre Authority Society''] constituted under Section 4 [1] of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 [for short, the ''Act'']. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported as JT 1996(3) SC 292 has held as under : "3. Paid Secretaries were recruited by the Rajasthan Credit Co-operative Institutions Cadre Authority Limited [for short, the ''Cadre Authority Society''] constituted under Section 4 [1] of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 [for short, the ''Act'']. They were appointed in the respective District Co-operative Banks initially under Recruitment and Service Conditions of the Managers of Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies Rules, 1977 [1977 Rules] and thereafter under Agriculture Cooperative Credit Societies Service Rules, 1969 [for short, the ''1969 Rules''] by the Managers of the District Cooperative Banks and were sought to be posted to the Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies [for short, the ''PACS''] fastening liability of their salary on the PACS who have challenged the validity of the constitution of Cadre Authority Society and also the power of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies [for short, the ''Registrar] to make the rules calling upon PACS to contribute to the Manager''s Salary Fund under Central Cooperative Bank Rules, 1969 [for short, the "Bank Rules"]. The Division Bench has held that the Cadre Authority Society cannot be registered as a cooperative society under Section 4 of the Act, the Bank Rules are ultra vires the powers of the Registrar under Rule 41 of the Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 [for short, the "Rules]. 4. S/Shri R.K. Jain, Rajiv Dhavan and Jitendra Sharma, learned senior counsel appear for these Unions and Managers. Pending these appeals, pursuant to the permission granted by this Court, the Government framed the Conditions of Service of the Managers/Assistant Managers of the Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies Rules, 1995 and placed the same on record. The appellants are not agreeable to those Rules. Consequently, the learned counsel have contended that under Section 4 [1], Cadre Authority Society is a society regulating facilitation of disbursement of the loans by the PACS in terms of cooperative movement for which PACS came to be registered under the Act. The Cadre Authority Society came to be registered pursuant to the recommendation made by Datey Committee which has gone into the credit structure and proper utilization of the loans to the agriculturists made available by the State Government and distributed through the State Central Cooperative Credit Bank to the District Societies who in turn distribute the loans to PACS. The Cadre Authority Society came to be registered pursuant to the recommendation made by Datey Committee which has gone into the credit structure and proper utilization of the loans to the agriculturists made available by the State Government and distributed through the State Central Cooperative Credit Bank to the District Societies who in turn distribute the loans to PACS. For their coordination, supervision and proper utilization thereof the Managers\Assistant Managers [hereinafter referred to as the paid Secretaries] are competent persons to work as liaison between the PACS and their members and the District Banks and Central Bank. The Registrar under Rule 41 of the Rules read with Section 147 [2] and Section 148 [2] (xxx) of the Act is empowered to regulate the service conditions of paid Secretaries and to prescribe qualifications. Consequently, the Cadre Authority Society registered under Section 4(1) of the Act is a valid society. It is also contended that the 1969 Rules prescribe the mode of recruitment, method of appointment and control of the Managers. Bank Rules prescribe the amounts collected from PACS to pay their salaries. Therefore, the PACS are bound to contribute towards the salary and allowances of the paid Secretaries. Shri Jitendra Sharma further contended that they are the members of the PACS and that, therefore, the PACS are bound by the Bank Rules. Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the Registrar has no power to make Bank Rules nor has he power to direct the PACS to contribute for the salary and allowances of the paid Secretaries. The High Court, therefore, was right in recording the findings in that behalf. 5. The question, therefore, is: whether the appellants are right in their contentions? With a view to appreciate the contentions, the first question that arises is: whether Cadre Authority Society could be a cooperative society registered under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Section 4 [1] reads thus: "4 [1]. Societies which may be registered and classified under this Act: Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Cooperative Society which has its objects and accordance with the cooperative principles, or a cooperative society established with the object of facilitating the operations of such societies, may be registered under this Act". 6. The marginal note indicates that the classified societies are to be registered under the Act. 6. The marginal note indicates that the classified societies are to be registered under the Act. Subject to the provisions of the Act, a cooperative society which has its object the promotion of the economic interests of "its members" in accordance with the cooperative principles, or a cooperative society established with the object of "facilitating the operations of such societies", may be registered under the Act. The Cadre Authority Society, admittedly, does not come under the first limb of Section 4 [1]. The contention is that since the object of the Cadre Authority Society is to facilitate the operations of the PACS, it is a cooperative society registered under the Act. In support thereof, Sri Jain placed the model bye-laws as part of the record. The model bye-laws would indicate that membership of a society consists of A Class members, viz., individuals who are above the age of 18 years and B Class members, viz., institutions who are admitted as members of the society. The institutions are lending societies. One of the objects is to recruit paid Secretaries to the District Cooperative Societies. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that the cooperative structure is built upon three tier system, viz., PACS consisting of individual members, at the grass-root level within the area of operation of that society, the District Cooperative Societies and the Central Cooperative Bank. It is not in dispute that the District Cooperative Societies and the Central Cooperative Bank got the Cadre Authority Society which is not a lending institution, registered and the paid Secretaries, who are otherwise a third agency, recruited by it. They are appointed by the Managers of the District Cooperative Societies and are transferred by them to the PACS within the area of the operation of the District Bank. It would, therefore, be clear that it does not come as a society to facilitate the PACS in funding them for disbursement of loan to the members of PACS. 7. The question is: whether the PACS are bound to take the services of the paid Secretaries? Rule 41 of the Rules reads thus: "41. Officers and employees of cooperative societies. It would, therefore, be clear that it does not come as a society to facilitate the PACS in funding them for disbursement of loan to the members of PACS. 7. The question is: whether the PACS are bound to take the services of the paid Secretaries? Rule 41 of the Rules reads thus: "41. Officers and employees of cooperative societies. - [1] Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of society no Cooperative society shall appoint any person as its paid officer or employee in any category of service, unless he possess the qualifications and furnishes the security if so specified by the Registrar from time to time, for such category of service an the society, or for the class of society to which it belongs. The conditions of service of the employees of the societies shall be as specified by the Registrar. 2. No co-operative society shall retain in service any paid officer or employees, if he does not acquire the qualifications or furnish the security as is referred to in sub-rule [1] within such time as the Registrar may direct. 3. The Registrar may for special reasons, relax in respect of any paid officer or employee, the provisions of this rule in regard to the qualifications he should possess or the security he should furnish. 4. Where in the course of an audit under Section 68 or an inquiry under Section 70 or an inspection under 71 or Section 72 it is brought to the notice of the Registrar that a paid officer or servant of a Society has committed or has been otherwise responsible for misappropriation, breach of trust or other offence, in relation to the society, the Registrar may, if in his opinion, there is prima facie evidence against such paid officer or servant and the suspension of such paid officer or servant is necessary on the interest of the society direct the committee of the society pending the investigation and disposal of the matter, to place or cause to be placed such paid officer or servant under suspension from such date and for such period as may be specified by him. 5. On receipt of a direction from the Registrar under sub-rule [4], the committee of the society shall, notwithstanding any provision to the Contrary in the bye-laws, place or cause to be placed the paid officer or servant under suspension forthwith. 6. 5. On receipt of a direction from the Registrar under sub-rule [4], the committee of the society shall, notwithstanding any provision to the Contrary in the bye-laws, place or cause to be placed the paid officer or servant under suspension forthwith. 6. The Registrar may direct the committee to extend from time to time the period of suspension and the paid officer or servant suspended shall not be reinstated except with the previous sanction of the Registrar whose decision thereon shall be final. 7. If the committee fails to comply with the direction issued under servant under suspension from such date and for such period as he may specify in the order and thereupon the paid officer or servant, as the case may be, shall be under suspension." 20. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent-petitioner-Chad Singh is employee of appellant-Bank because the appointment order dated 12.2.1974 had been passed by the appellant-Bank, Charge Sheet (Annex.1 of earlier writ petition) had been issued by the appellant-Bank, the enquiry was conducted by the appellant-Bank and thereafter the respondent-petitioner-Chad Singh was dismissed from service by the appellant-Bank vide its order dated 30.1.1993 (Annex.6). The departmental appeal was also dismissed by the appellant-Bank vide order dated 3.1.1994 (Annex.8). After allowing the earlier writ petition again charge sheet was served by the appellant-Bank to the respondent-petitioner vide communication dated 19.1.2009 (Annex.4) and charges have been proved by the appellant Bank. Therefore, it is clear that he was working under the control of appellant-Bank and it is to be held that there is relation of employer and employee between the respondent-Chad Singh and appellant-Bank, therefore, the respondent-petitioner-Chad Singh is employee of appellant-Bank. 21. The learned Single Judge has held that in the proceedings of District Level Enquiry Committee Society''s representative appeared but never took a stand that the delinquent respondent-petitioner Chad Singh was not the Society''s employee and the charge sheet attributed to him was with regard to committing the misconduct while working as Manager of the Society, therefore, the argument advanced by Shri Godara that the respondent-petitioner was not employee of the Society has no legs to stand, but merely on the ground that the Society''s representative appeared in the proceedings of Enquiry Committee, it cannot be held that the respondent-petitioner is employee of the Society. 22. 22. The findings of the learned Single Judge that the appellant-respondent is employee of appellant-Society are not based on material available on record. The learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence such as completely overlooked the material available on record. Mere presence of representative of the appellant society at the time of enquiry cannot prove that the respondent-Chad Singh was employee of the society. Apart from this, there is no admission on behalf of the appellant-Society anywhere that the respondent Chad Singh was its employee. 23. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the respondent Chad Singh was the employee of the appellant-Bank and not the employee of the appellant-society. Therefore, the finding given by learned Single Judge that Chad Singh was the employee of the society is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the liability to pay all consequential benefits to the respondent-petitioner is fastened on the appellant-Bank. 24. In view of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant-Society is liable to be allowed and appeal filed by the appellant-Bank is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, DBSAW No.883/2016 is allowed and DBSAW No.59/2017 is dismissed with a direction to the appellant-Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (in Appeal No.59/2017) to grant all consequential benefits to the respondent-petitioner Chad Singh as ordered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 17.09.2016.